Ignorance fought. Thanks!
How about the 21st amendment, Section 2?
That sounds like it applies to private action. I wonder if a big deal could be made of it; say the President takes a flask into a dry county. He’s not just breaking the law, he is intentionally violating the Constitution and his oath!!!
Still meant nothing until the Volstead Act was passed. Once again, the Constitution provided a framework for Congress to pass a law that was workable by enforcers and courts. The Constitution doesn’t define what an “intoxicating beverage” is. It also doesn’t define any penalties. You could not punish anyone for violating it. That’s because it is not a “law.” Laws are laws. The Constitution defines whether the laws are enactable. Two different purposes.
So I can enslave people, but because I am not congress, I cannot be charged for violating the 13th amendment?
Slavery is a crime. See 18 USC § 1581 - 1597
Yes. Once again, you will never be charged with violating the constitution. You can only be charged with breaking a law.
Well technically then isn’t the 13th amendment useless? Weren’t slaves owned by individuals before the civil war, not the government?
[QUOTE=Article IV§2(3)]
No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.
[/QUOTE]
The Constitution when first written supported the rights of slave owners. The thirteenth amendment stated that it no longer did.
No. Section 2 is useful all by itself, because it granted Congress the new power to criminalize slavery. Before the 13th Amendment, Congress could not make it a crime to enslave someone.
Also, the fact that you can’t be criminally charged under the 13th Amendment doesn’t mean it can’t be used against you at all. If you go to court to try to enforce a contract to buy a slave, for example, the court cannot help you, because the 13th Amendment (among other laws) says that contract is illegal.
So couldn’t every single state make a law banning free speech then?
They could until much more recently than people usually realize, but not any more. The incorporation doctrine mentioned in post 16 has led to almost the entire Bill of Rights being applied to the states.
They could only own slaves because the laws of the states permitted one human being to own another human being, and the slaves were a form of property.
As soon as the 13th Amendment was passed, all those state laws which created the legal institution of slavery were unconstitutional and ceased to have any force. The slaveowners lost their property rights in the slaves, who became free.
You are thinking of the 18th amendment. This is the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th. It has no enabling clause (e.g. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation)
But what I was responding to was not the mechanics of enforcing Constitutional law, but the idea of reaching private conduct. As others have said, almost the entirety of the Constitution says what government can or can not do. RNATB said that the 13th was, to his belief, the only clause that applied to private conduct. I offered the 21st amendment, section 2.
Which would certainly have had effects on the application of pre-existing criminal laws. Actually keeping slaves meant doing things that were crimes when done to free people, so just removing the property rights suddenly brought a lot of general laws into the picture. Even without laws specifically targeting slavery, it was already illegal to chain a free person up against their will and bring them back to the plantation to work.
The text of the 18th was “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” That criminalizes individual private conduct.
The section you quoted from the 21st amendment removed the federal prohibition but returned regulation to the individual states. It was more a transfer of jurisdiction than control over private behavior.
The Constitution frequently made reference to private actors. Look at the 11th:
After that, private citizens could not sue states, an issue in the beginning because of failure to honor bonds issued in the Revolution. It didn’t criminalize the activity, true, but it certainly was a limitation placed on actions.
They could, and sometimes did, though generally the state constitutions had similar protections to the Bill of Rights.
Since the 1920s though, the federal courts have used the incorporation doctrine (linked above) to apply the (most of) the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well. That doctrine relies primarily 14th Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1868.
That’s a limitation on the federal government, not on private actors.
You need to explain this.
It’s like your comment that the 21st Amendment was a transfer of jurisdiction from the federal government back to the states.
The 11th Amendment is a limitation on the judicial power of the federal government. The federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear that type of a suit against a state.
However, that doesn’t mean that a private citizen has lost the right to sue a state. Rather, if they have a claim against a state, they can only bring that type of claim in the state’s courts, under state law.
Now, state law may restrict the type of claim that can be brought, based on principles of sovereign immunity. But that’s a restriction under state law of the state judicial power, not under federal law.
Quite right. But it’s not that the 13th amendment created a criminal offence; the criminal offences would be based on the pre-existing state law, which now applied to protect former slaves as well (Heavy asterisk there, of course. In practice, not so much.)